Scholarlink

Background <p>The median sternotomy incision is a common approach in cardiac surgery, often leading to noticeable scar formation that can impact patients' quality of life. This study aims to compare outcomes between subcuticular suture and adhesive strip (Steri-stripTM, 3M HealthCare®) closure techniques for median sternotomy incisions in cardiac surgery patients.</p> Methods <p>In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 112 patients undergoing cardiac surgery (August 2020 to September 2021) were assigned to either the adhesive strip or subcuticular suture group. Wound assessments occurred on postoperative days 3, 7, and before discharge, monitoring for infection and dehiscence. Follow-ups at 1–2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months used scar scales, including Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), Manchester Scar Scale (MSS), and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS).</p> Results <p>Out of a total of 112 patients, 6 were excluded. All remaining patients were completely followed up. No significant differences were observed in VSS, MSS, POSAS outcomes, or wound complications during postoperative follow-ups. Adhesive strip closure took 0.49 minutes, significantly less than 7.27 minutes for subcuticular sutures (P&#xa0;&lt;&#xa0;0.001). Furthermore, the total cost of adhesive strips was lower than the subcuticular suture group.</p> Conclusion <p>The adhesive strips application for skin closure of median sternotomy wounds was found to be non-inferior to subcuticular sutures in terms of clinical outcomes and postoperative wound complications. Additionally, this approach resulted in reduced operative time and proved to be cost-effective in hospital care.</p> Level of Evidence I <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to&#xa0;Authors <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparison of Subcuticular Suture and Adhesive Strip for Cosmetic Outcome in Median Sternotomy Closure in Patient Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月5日

查看全文
  • Suphach Songvasin,
  • Kengkart Winaikosol,
  • Chananya Karunasumetta

摘要

Background

The median sternotomy incision is a common approach in cardiac surgery, often leading to noticeable scar formation that can impact patients' quality of life. This study aims to compare outcomes between subcuticular suture and adhesive strip (Steri-stripTM, 3M HealthCare®) closure techniques for median sternotomy incisions in cardiac surgery patients.

Methods

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 112 patients undergoing cardiac surgery (August 2020 to September 2021) were assigned to either the adhesive strip or subcuticular suture group. Wound assessments occurred on postoperative days 3, 7, and before discharge, monitoring for infection and dehiscence. Follow-ups at 1–2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months used scar scales, including Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), Manchester Scar Scale (MSS), and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS).

Results

Out of a total of 112 patients, 6 were excluded. All remaining patients were completely followed up. No significant differences were observed in VSS, MSS, POSAS outcomes, or wound complications during postoperative follow-ups. Adhesive strip closure took 0.49 minutes, significantly less than 7.27 minutes for subcuticular sutures (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the total cost of adhesive strips was lower than the subcuticular suture group.

Conclusion

The adhesive strips application for skin closure of median sternotomy wounds was found to be non-inferior to subcuticular sutures in terms of clinical outcomes and postoperative wound complications. Additionally, this approach resulted in reduced operative time and proved to be cost-effective in hospital care.

Level of Evidence I

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.